Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: U.S. Touts Provincial Reconstruction Teams as a Model

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    5 Dec 07 testimony before the HASC Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Provincial Reconstruction Teams - Historical and Current Perspectives on Doctrine and Strategy:

    Bernard Carreau, NDU

    General (Ret) Volney F. Warner

    BG (Ret) Rick Olson (Former Cdr CJTF-76)

    Kathleen Hicks, CSIS

  2. #2
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Small world.

    Volney Warner was my Corps Commander--his son was my comrade in Ranger School and later in 2-505 when senior had XVIII Corps. Jim (the son) retired in 2006 as a BG.

    Rick Olson and I took French together.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    29 Jan 08 testimony before the HASC Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Interagency Reform: Can the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Case Study Illuminate the Future of Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations?

    Carlos Pascual, The Brookings Institution
    ...as a nation we need to understand that addressing conflict and helping nations build peace is a national security priority. It requires both civilian and military capacity. Yet we do not have a national security budget – we have a budget for defense and another for foreign affairs. A stabilization and reconstruction capacity that is essential for the success of defense missions will remain under funded if it is not seen as part of an investment in national security that cuts across accounts....
    Barbara Bodine, Princeton University

    Michele Flournoy, Center for a New American Security

    Nora Bensahel, RAND
    ....there are some ways to minimize some of the negative effects of interagency competition and increase U.S. capacity for stability operations. These include:

    1. Manage interagency competition....

    2. Create incentives for interagency secondments....

    3. Increase the capacity of USAID....

    4. Establish flexible funding mechanisms....

    5. There is no substitute for an involved president and an involved Congress....

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    14 Feb 08 testimony before the HASC Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Provincial Reconstruction Teams: A Case for Interagency National Security Reform?:

    Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Policy)

    Stephen D. Mull, Acting Asst Secretary, Bureau of Pol-Mil Affairs, DoS

    Michael E. Hess, Asst Administrator, Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau, USAID


    (Barry Pavel, Principal Deputy Asst SecDef (SOLIC and Interdependent Capabilities), also appeared, but a transcript of his testimony is not available.)

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Norfolk VA
    Posts
    77

    Default Different PRTs

    I think its been pointed out elsewhere, but its worth noting that that PRTs in Afghanistan are different from those in Iraq. Having just left Baghdad, I'm more familiar with Iraq. In Iraq, the PRTs are State Department organizations that, while they have military members, are supervised by the US embassy (by the Office of Provincial Affairs--OPA). Iraq PRTs, for the most part, do not have their own organic security capability and are reliant on nearby military units. My understanding is that the PRTs in Afghanistan are part of the military chain of command (reporting through DoD)and have a small military unit (platoon?) organic to provide security and help them move around the battlefield.
    I think these differences are significant when you consider the underlying impact on the missions and capabilities of the PRTs in each campaign.

  6. #6
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilR View Post
    I think its been pointed out elsewhere, but its worth noting that that PRTs in Afghanistan are different from those in Iraq.
    From my limited understanding of the PRTs in Afghanistan, it's somewhat more complex than that. I believe there are 12 operating in the American sector, 10 of which are US (1 Turkish and 1 Aus). Lines of reporting are "complex", and sometimes involve a dual structure. There are also separate PRTs and "embedded" PRTs - the ones with troops.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #7
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Afghanistan PRT's

    USIP Report # 152

    The U.S. Experience with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan: Lessons Identified

    by Robert M. Perito

    http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr152.html

    Summary

    * Important lessons for current and future U.S. peace and stability operations can be found in the experiences of Americans who served in Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan. PRTs are small, joint civilian-military organizations whose mission is to promote governance, security, and reconstruction throughout the country.
    * In June 2005, the United States led thirteen PRTs and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) directed nine. This multinational program was characterized by an emphasis on flexibility, a proliferation of national models, and an ad hoc approach to security and development.
    * The U.S. model featured a complement of seventy-nine American military and three civilian government representatives. The U.S. PRTs stressed governance, force protection, and quick impact development projects to "win hearts and minds."
    * The PRT emphasis on governance translated into supporting the respective provincial governors.
    * Security was limited to self-protection, providing a security presence, and assisting Afghan forces.
    * Reconstruction projects suffered from a lack of coordination and oversight. Military involvement in development brought criticism from relief agencies that claimed it put them at risk by blurring the distinction between combatants and humanitarian workers.
    * In the view of many PRT veterans, the entire multinational PRT program would benefit from an agreed concept of operations and an effective central coordinating authority. The U.S. PRTs would profit from interagency delimitation of civilian and military roles and improved civilian agency staffing, funding, and administrative support.
    * PRT veterans believe the addition of USAID representatives and better coordination with Afghan national development plans improved U.S. PRT reconstruction efforts. Rapidly disbursing long-term funding sources available to civilian representatives would rationalize and speed reconstruction efforts, which should focus on security-related infrastructure.
    * PRT veterans also argue that PRTs are primarily military organizations; thus, better suited for performing security-related tasks. PRTs should concentrate on supporting Afghan security sector reform and providing a security presence in contested areas.
    Sapere Aude

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •